### You are viewing a page indexed by search engine. All comments on the topic are put together without order and may be confusing to read. To see organized discussion click here. ###
Is peer review broken?
I would like a site where ideas can be be reviewed, analyzed, criticized in a common forum without personal attacks. The mysticism that has crept into science has driven away real discussions as people argue their pet theories. We need to get to bedrock. I would like a place to give my theory on physics where it is actually looked at and not lost in the loony bin. This is a brilliant idea. Also, like in open peer review process it is good that authors have the right of reply, and other researchers have the chance to comment prior to publication. In this way, even if reviewer overlooks serious flaw, another researcher can contribute with comments, and in such constructive way make science more rigorous, paper more sound, and reviewing process more efficient and fast.
In case of rejection, when the (revised) paper is submitted to another journal, new reviewers could save time by reading past comments, and would be less likely to miss real errors described in those comments. They could also see if past rejecting reviews were biased and unfounded.
The best thing is that even if the paper is flawed, other scientist thinking of doing similar research could read about this flaws in reviewers' comments, and save time by choosing other topics for research.
- anonymity - if authors and reviewers were completely anonymous before publication, biases towards established scientists and institutions would diminish.
- transparency - if manuscripts, reviews, and names were published online (both rejected & accepted), reviewers would be more honest, less biased, suppress conflict of interest, provide more rigorous and scientifically sound criticism. Constructive criticism in reviews/comments would be available for future reviewers and other scientists. Peer review has many problems, it is:
- slow - in the fast paced world we live in, it is unacceptable that it often takes more than a year for review / publication
- biased - reviewers and editors can suppress dissent, papers on topics they have conflict of interest with or opposing views, favor established scientists and institutions, etc
- inconsistent - same papers can get accepted and rejected, depending on reviewers and journals
Solution is to increase anonymity *and* transparency. [1][2]Is peer review broken?
